I am writing to having a concern regarding a major project proposal at 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta (Planning Portal Ref: SSD-10433).
Key concerns for our building include:

Traffic and Noise: Proposed driveway for entry into Parking space is from Peach lane which is extremely small and hazardous for pedestrians as there is no footpath for current residents like us and others on this lane to access their Units. Total car park size proposed is 189 cars (Motorcycles and bicycles are additional ) which is extremely high considering the size and current capacity of Peace lane.
Parking Issues as already community suffering and no free street Parking at all.

Overshadowing: Potential loss of solar access for units and communal areas.

Privacy: Increased overlooking from the proposed high-rise structure.

Traffic and Noise: Increased congestion and ambient noise during and after construction on Marion and Station Streets.

Visual Amenity: The scale of the project in relation to our existing building.

Please refer to the attached documents.

I support the project

I would love to see more apartments around the area, but have the following concerns regarding this proposal:

• Traffic Concerns and Pedestrian Safety - Per the traffic impact assessment (appendix 15) access to the site will be via Station/Peace Lane, which the document describes as "(...) a one-way westbound access laneway that provides rear access to properties on the southern side of Marion Street. There are no formal footpaths on either side of Station Lane." This excludes that Station Lane is a residential laneway, with multiple 3 to 6 storey apartment blocks. Residents of both Station Lane and Raymond Lane frequently along the centre of this laneway, given the lack of footpaths, including many small children who ride their bikes on the usually quiet road. Station Lane is the only access for the 6-storey apartment block on 4 Station Lane.
A significant increase in traffic on Station Lane must be weighed against the current condition of the laneway - narrow, one-way, with no sidewalks and a lack of clear 'one-way' signs meaning cars are often driving in the wrong direction.
I also note that, in the traffic modelling, traffic has not been modelled along Station Lane or its intersections (Station Street West into Station Lane, Station Lane into High Street, Station Lane into Raymond Lane). These are not listed in the Lane Summaries and do not appear in the modelling in Appendix B - forecast future traffic volumes. This is a significant omission given that, as identified in Figure 18, these intersections will handle any and all resident traffic.
Table 4 – Proposed development trip generation estimates an average of 56 additional trips in the AM peak hour, and 70 additional trips in the PM peak hour. The generations rates used to find these averages are based on a 2012 survey of developments within Sydney, with the dominant mode at that time being walking (62%). The table comes with caveats on when these rates should be used, and given that in 2016 the dominant mode in Parramatta was car (>50%) these estimates are far from accurate.
As far as pedestrian safety is concerned, the intersection of Marion Street, High Street and Jubilee Lane is of particular concern. Residents in the area often cross Marion Street to walk down Jubilee Lane, as this is both the access to Jubilee Park and the best route to Parramatta CBD and Parramatta Station. There is currently no safe way to cross this portion of road. There is no pedestrian crossing, no traffic lights, wide lines and car behaviour at the intersection that is often hard to read. There are often unaccompanied children crossing this section of road to reach the park. Even with the additional public pathway included in this proposal, an increase in traffic would create a more significant safety risk to the many young families of the area.
Finally, with reference again the conditions of Station Lane, I am concerned about overflow parking given the maximum 195 car spaces for a proposed 296 units, and a single retail parking spot. Again referencing the Traffic Impact Assessment, Figure 11 "(...) indicates that the majority of households within Parramatta own at least one car". This would mean that around 100 households likely to own a car do not have a parking spot, and so will likely add to the volume of cars parked along Station Lane and adjoining streets. Parking along Station Lane and High Street is already at capacity, with Marion Street parking being paid. It is not clear how this would impact the roads in the area.

• Shadowing and View Obstruction - The shadow model shown in the full architectural set (appendix 3a) is difficult to read as the only available show modelling includes 'other proposed developments' that do not exist and, from what I can tell, haven't even been approved. This is misleading as it covers the actual shadow of the proposal. The model does not cover the full daylight hours, and as residents of the area we are certain that this proposal would have an obvious negative impact on both the sunlight received in the morning and the views of Harris Park and surrounds. Paired with the diagram showing the sun's path and wind direction it becomes clear that the building opposite on Station Lane, 27 Station Lane, would receive little to no sun in winter yet would be exposed to the cold southerly winds. This raises concern for the living conditions of the residents, as well as a question of increased energy consumption of affected residents in the area who may need to use extra electricity to heat their homes and dry their laundry.
On this note, the Pedestrian Wind Environment Study (appendix 20) also raises concerns of increased wind, particularly at the entrance of Station Lane. This would cause issues for both the very young and older residents who may have poorer stability.

• Connecting with Country - I echo the concerns raised in section 5.4.1.4 of the Connecting with Country report, specifically in relation to the height of the proposal and environmental conditions of the laneway. With respect to section 5.4.2.2 I strongly agree with the importance of access considerations, seating, and the primary importance of adapting environments to people with disabilities, not the other way around. Concerns raised on the size of the site and the impact on the visual environment mirror my own thoughts.

• View Impact - Thew View Impact (appendix 22) provides a 'visual impact analysis' of different views. Apart from the photos being taken at just the right angle for a nearby tree to block the view of the proposed building, I note that the impact of 'Existing View 2' is shown on the table as being Moderate-Low, however the conclusion specifies that current impact would currently be severe. Even including the proposed additional high-rise buildings that may be built in the future, this only drops to moderate with no indicition on the period of time the view would be impacted severely.

• Inconsistencies in the documents - Application_20260317031810 states that The Trustee for CN Marion Unit Trust does not have written consent of all landowners. The Land Owners Consent, signed the same day on behalf of The Trustee for CN Marion Unit Trust , states that they are the legal owners of 33-43 Marion Street and grant consent. There appear to be a number of errors in the application including the number of dwellings (400 vs 296) and number of affordable in-fill dwellings (12 vs 29). The size of the site is listed in the application as being 2,374sqm but in the Stage 1 Report (appendix 6) as being 2,394sqm and in the catchment plan (appendix 7) as being 2,375sqm. The EIS references 5 basement parking levels, but the design report mentions 6 levels. It's difficult to get a clear understanding of the scope of this proposal with crucial details changing throughout the provided documents.

• Community engagement - the Engagement Report (appendix 9) states that flyers were delivered to the local community to inform them of the proposal in October 2025. Although I live along the route provided, I did not receive a flyer. I was informed of the proposal and that submissions were open via a letter received around April 16. I had not heard of this proposal previously. There are frequent mentions of concerns being raised by 'one survey responder' as though the low number is telling, however there were only a total of 2 survey responders total.

my Key concerns include:
Overshadowing: Potential loss of solar access for units and common areas.
Privacy: Increased overlooking from the proposed high-rise structure.
Traffic and Noise: Increased congestion and noise during and after construction. The proposed driveway access via Peach Lane is of particular concern, as it is narrow, has no footpath, and may pose safety risks for pedestrians. The proposed car park capacity of 189 vehicles (excluding motorcycles and bicycles) is also significantly high for the lane’s current capacity.
Visual Amenity: The scale of the project in relation to the existing building.

My name is John Zhao, and I have been a resident of 9–11 Cowper Street for the past 15 years, living in an eight-storey apartment building. Over this time, I have witnessed the ongoing development and transformation of Cowper Street—changes that, in some cases, have not been for the better.

Cowper Street is already a high-density residential area, where residents face ongoing challenges such as limited parking availability due to the number of apartment buildings, as well as significant noise pollution from both traffic and pedestrian activity. The proposed addition of a 37-storey tower comprising 296 dwellings would place further strain on an area that is already operating beyond comfortable capacity.

While I understand and support appropriate urban development—particularly within the Parramatta CBD—the scale of this proposal appears excessive given its location on the fringe of Parramatta and Harris Park. This is especially concerning when compared to nearby developments, such as 8 Cowper Street, which has a maximum height of 17 storeys. The proposed building is therefore grossly disproportionate to its immediate surroundings.

Traffic and access present additional concerns. The proposal identifies entry via “Peace Lane,” which is in fact Station Lane. This is a narrow laneway that already accommodates parked vehicles and provides access for multiple residential properties. Increased use of this lane by construction vehicles, service trucks, and additional resident traffic will significantly impact safety and further reduce the amenity of an already constrained space.

I am also concerned that this development is proposed as a build-to-rent project. Based on my experience serving on the executive committee of my apartment building, there are often ongoing challenges associated with high tenant turnover. Transient occupancy can lead to reduced accountability and, in some cases, a lack of respect for both the building and the broader neighbourhood.

Furthermore, the photomontages included in the proposal appear to be misleading. They depict open green spaces at the corners of Cowper and Marion Streets, whereas in reality these areas are occupied by heritage houses and existing low-rise apartments. The images also suggest pedestrian crossings and an open, landscaped link between Marion Street and Station Lane that does not accurately reflect the current conditions. In practice, this connection would lead to a narrow and uninviting laneway, making it unlikely to function as an ակտիվ or well-used public space.

My final concern relates to the proposed shop-top housing model. Several existing developments along Cowper Street already adopt this approach; however, in practice, the ground-floor tenancies are predominantly used for health services or office spaces rather than active retail. As a result, these uses do not generate meaningful pedestrian activity or street-level vibrancy. This raises doubts about the proposal’s claim that it will activate the through-site link and contribute to a lively, engaged public domain.

As a long-term resident, my concerns are not with development itself. I recognise that Parramatta is a growing and increasingly vibrant city. Rather, my concern lies with ensuring that development is balanced, appropriate in scale, and mindful of the quality of life of existing residents—particularly those who have made a long-term commitment to the community.

The project leads to an unfair scenario for the residents in 27 Station Street West. Below are some of the adverse effects that they will experience when the project is completely finished.
• Loss of natural sunlight and ventilation
• Reduced privacy, as the new building can overlook 27 Station Street apartments
• Increased noise, dust, and disturbance during construction
• More traffic and parking issues in the area. The area is quite congested on Station Street and this will intensify even further.
• Big impact on property value

Updated Anonymous Objection Letter (with corrected address)
Here is the revised version with your exact address: 27 Station Street West, Parramatta NSW 2150.
I have updated every reference for accuracy and consistency.

Resident of 27 Station Street West
Parramatta NSW 2150
[Today’s Date – e.g. 9 April 2026]
Director, State Significant Development Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Email: [email protected]
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-81770462 – Mixed-Use Shop Top Housing Development at 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta NSW 2150
Dear Director,
I write as a directly affected neighbouring resident to formally object to the above State Significant Development Application (SSDA). I request that my identity be kept confidential to the extent possible under the Department’s submission processes.
I am a resident of 27 Station Street West, Parramatta NSW 2150. My property is located at the south-east corner of the intersection of Station Street West and Peace Lane — immediately opposite the proposed development site on the western side of Station Street West and northern side of Peace Lane.
The architectural plans and drawings provided by the applicant (FUSE-ARCHITECTS, dated April 2025, reference B2.pdf) clearly demonstrate that the proposed high-rise mixed-use building will have a severe and unacceptable impact on my residential amenity. I object on the following grounds:
1 Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
The proposed tower (shown in the 3D render on the cover sheet and site analysis on Page 4) is significantly taller than my 3-storey building and is located directly across Station Street West and Peace Lane with minimal setback. My corner unit (with windows and balcony facing both Station Street West (west) and Peace Lane (north)) will lose the majority of morning and midday sunlight, particularly during winter months. The preliminary sun-path analysis on Page 4 already indicates major shadow impacts on neighbouring properties at this exact location. Detailed shadow diagrams (listed as SSDA 101 on the cover sheet but not yet provided) are expected to confirm substantial non-compliance with solar access requirements for living areas.
2 Complete Loss of Views and Outlook
The current low-rise context (1–2 storey dwellings) will be replaced by a full-height building wall and balconies directly opposite my property (see Site Plan Page 6, Ground Floor Plan Page 12, and Typical Floor Plans Pages 8–11). My primary outlook to the north and west will be entirely obstructed.
3 Significant Loss of Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed east- and south-facing windows, balconies and communal areas on the new building will allow direct overlooking into my living spaces and bedrooms from higher levels.
4 Construction Impacts
Demolition and construction of a high-rise tower immediately across both streets will result in prolonged noise, dust, vibration, heavy vehicle movements and restricted access on Station Street West and Peace Lane, severely disrupting my day-to-day living for an extended period.
5 Ongoing Amenity and Streetscape Impacts
Increased traffic, deliveries, foot traffic and potential wind effects from the commercial ground-floor uses and new residents will further degrade the quiet residential character I currently enjoy.
The plans show the building is pushed hard against both street boundaries (Pages 6–7), maximising impact on my property while providing no meaningful mitigation for immediate neighbours. This proposal fails to adequately consider the amenity of existing residents and is inconsistent with the objectives of the State Significant Development guidelines and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan.
I respectfully request that the Department:
• Refuse the application in its current form; or
• Require substantial redesign (increased setbacks, reduced height, or alternative massing) to protect solar access, privacy and views for my property and other immediate neighbours; and
• Ensure the forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement includes comprehensive, site-specific shadow diagrams, visual impact assessments and mitigation measures that address the impacts on residents at 27 Station Street West.
I am available to provide further information or a site inspection of my property if required (via the Department if confidentiality is maintained). Please keep me informed of the exhibition of the EIS and any determination timeline.
Thank you for considering my submission. I trust the Department will give full weight to the very real and severe impacts on existing residents at this highly constrained inner-city site.
Yours sincerely,
A Directly Affected Resident
27 Station Street West
Parramatta NSW 2150

I write to object to the proposal for Shop Top Housing at 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta and Concurrent Rezoning of the site. I have reviewed the plans provided, and as a resident living within 100m of the development site, I have the following concerns regarding the proposal.

Concerns for Station Lane vehicle access
The proposed development includes 6 levels of basement parking, totalling 195 parking spaces, with Station Lane (also known as Peace Lane) used to facilitate vehicle access to the site, both during construction and when the site becomes operational. Station Lane is a narrow, one-way service lane that is inadequate for facilitating access for such a high volume of traffic. The lane is currently a well-used pedestrian route for thoroughfare and for access to residences, however, it is severely lacking in pedestrian infrastructure (refer to attached photo). Tensions between pedestrians and vehicles will only be exacerbated by such a drastic escalation in traffic, and I hold serious concerns for the safety of pedestrians if this proposal were to proceed.

Inadequate community engagement
It is clear throughout the Engagement Report that consultation with the local community regarding this proposal has not been conducted in good faith. While the Report outlines the methods of consultation that were undertaken, it does not specify how many community members in total participated in consultation activities. It is evident from reading the report that only minimal contact occurred between the consultants and the community.
- The Report claims that a letterbox drop of 300 flyers and doorknock was conducted in October 2025, however as a resident within the immediate vicinity of the site I did not receive or see any materials.
- Only 2 responses were collected for their community survey.
- Pop-up sessions were held in a location in Harris Park that did not attract incidental foot traffic.
- The project website is not accessible via a public web search of the street address.
Further community engagement should occur before this proposal progresses.

Lack of open green space
The scale of the proposed development and rezoning is not supported by nearby infrastructure, particularly open green space. The EIS cites Jubilee Park and Rosella Park as local recreation offerings to service the development. However, these are both relatively small open spaces which are already well-used by families that live in the existing high density residences nearby. The drastic increase to density brought about by the proposed rezoning would push these parks beyond their capacity. Further investigation should be conducted into whether the existing local infrastructure can continue to support this neighbourhood in the coming years, with many large residential developments nearby already in their construction phases.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I look forward to staying updated with this proposal.

Key concerns include:
Overshadowing: Potential loss of solar access for units and common areas.
Privacy: Increased overlooking from the proposed high-rise structure.
Traffic and Noise: Increased congestion and noise during and after construction. The proposed driveway access via Peach Lane is of particular concern, as it is narrow, has no footpath, and may pose safety risks for pedestrians. The proposed car park capacity of 189 vehicles (excluding motorcycles and bicycles) is also significantly high for the lane’s current capacity.
Visual Amenity: The scale of the project in relation to the existing building.